Science-based and stakeholder-driven marine protected area network planning: A successful case study from north central California Mary Gleason a, f, * , Scott McCreary b, f , Melissa Miller-Henson f , John Ugoretz d , Evan Fox f , Matt Merrifield a, f , Will McClintock c, f , Paulo Serpa e , Kathryn Hoffman b a The Nature Conservancy, 99 Pacific St., Suite 200G, Monterey, CA 93950, USA b CONCUR, Inc., 1832 Second St., Berkeley, CA 94710, USA c Marine Science Institute, Mailcode 6150, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA d California Department of Fish and Game,1933 Cliff Dr., Suite 9, Santa Barbara, CA 93109, USA e California Department of Fish and Game, 20 Lower Ragsdale Rd., Suite 100, Monterey, CA 93940, USA f Marine Life Protection Act Initiative, California Natural Resources Agency,1416 Ninth St., Suite 1311, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA article info Article history: Available online 6 December 2009 abstract The planning process for California’s Marine Life Protection Act in north central California represents a case study in the design of a regional component of a statewide network of marine protected areas (MPAs) for improved ecosystem protection. We describe enabling factors, such as a legislative mandate, political will, and adequate capacity and funding that fostered a successful planning process. We identify strategic principles that guided the design of a transparent public planning process that delivered regional MPA network proposals, which both met science guidelines and achieved a high level of support among stakeholders. We also describe key decision support elements (spatial data, planning tools, and scientific evaluation) that were essential for designing, evaluating, and refining alternative MPA network proposals and for informing decision-makers. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction 1 Coastal and marine ecosystems provide a range of goods and services upon which we all depend. Protecting these marine ecosystem services requires maintaining the health of coastal and marine habitats, viability of marine life populations, and natural variability in ecological processes. Establishing marine protected areas (MPAs) is one strategy that can contribute to ecosystem protection and restoration of marine resources, especially if MPAs are well-designed and have a high degree of stakeholder accep- tance [1–4]. Planning and implementing MPAs is challenging, however, because available data for marine spatial planning are limited, the science of MPAs is relatively new, and MPAs are controversial with some stakeholders [5–7]. Fishing interests, in particular, are reluc- tant to accept additional closures since they bear the immediate cost of reduced access to areas previously fished and have already seen their fishing opportunities diminished due to declining stocks and increasing regulation [7,8]. Yet, establishing areas that limit consumptive use can produce long-term benefits for fishermen through enhanced marine life populations outside of MPAs [9–12]. There is a growing appreciation among scientists and policy- makers for the benefits of moving beyond individual MPAs to more carefully designed networks of ecologically-connected MPAs at larger scales that can help sustain and restore marine populations [13–17]. Networks of well-designed and well-managed MPAs can build upon the ecosystem protection, fisheries management, or research and education outcomes of individual MPAs to better protect a range of habitats and sustain more marine populations across a larger geographic region [17]. Additionally, in the face of climate change or catastrophic events, networks of MPAs may provide more resilience than individual MPAs, which are not designed to represent the full range of environmental variables and habitats [18,19]. Designing ecological connectivity into MPA * Corresponding author. The Nature Conservancy, 99 Pacific Street, Suite 200G, Monterey, CA 93950, United States. Tel.: þ1 831 333 2049; fax: þ1 831 333 1736. E-mail address: mgleason@tnc.org (M. Gleason). 1 List of Abbreviations: MPA: marine protected area; MLPA: Marine Life Protec- tion Act; DFG: California Department of Fish and Game; Task Force: Blue Ribbon Task Force; RSG: Regional Stakeholder Group; SAT: Master Plan Science Advisory Team; Initiative team: Marine Life Protection Act Initiative team; GIS: geographic information systems; Commission: California Fish and Game Commission; NRC: National Research Council; SMP: State Marine Park; SMR: State Marine Reserve; SMRMA: State Marine Recreational Management Area; SMCA: State Marine Conservation Area. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ocean & Coastal Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman 0964-5691/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2009.12.001 Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 52–68